Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Umm - post-war uchi-deshi did sumo practice too. Terry Dobson told me about how they used to try out tanto-dori techniques and do sumo. One thing I remember him saying is "I could never beat Chiba in sumo." This is not, however, some <secret teaching> of internal power. Sumo was, until recently, the most basic sport of guys in Japan. Everyone did it You don't even need a ball. It's really a stretch to impute, in any fashion, that the after-hours recreation (or in-class warm-up, if that occurred) of day-to-day sumo had anything to do with, for example, the shikko practice of Sagawa, or the kind of body-grounding training that some types of internal strength regimen recommend.
Ellis Amdur

It's really a stretch to impute, in any fashion, that the after-hours recreation (or in-class warm-up, if that occurred) of day-to-day sumo had anything to do with, for example, the shikko practice of Sagawa, or the kind of body-grounding training that some types of internal strength regimen recommend.
Ellis Amdur

Of course. Sumo wrestling is not IS training, but would be useful for today's people without experience in alive arts, which is my point.

Of course. Sumo wrestling is not IS training, but would be useful for today's people without experience in alive arts, which is my point.

I think the point is that holding up the "whenever it happened" Sumo practice that Ueshiba and co engaged in as some sort of example of how vastly different the training of the pre-war guys was vs. the post war guys just doesn't stand up.

I think the point is that holding up the "whenever it happened" Sumo practice that Ueshiba and co engaged in as some sort of example of how vastly different the training of the pre-war guys was vs. the post war guys just doesn't stand up.

Well, from the Mochizuki interview linked, there were more things than Sumo wrestling.

Unfortunately, there are, as far as I know, no surviving pre-war deshi - but it might be worth a final look. If any still survive, it would certainly be worth asking what forms of training students did.

Similarly, as some post-war Honbu dojo uchi-deshi and soto-deshi, from both the 1950's and 1960's are still alive, perhaps instead of our speculating on allusions in print, one should ask. Kobayashi sensei, for example, is alive and well, as are Saotome sensei, Chiba Sensei, Tada sensei, Kato sensei (although his answers will probably be gnomic as always). At Shingu, some of the shihan are still well - Anno sensei, for example. And Iwama - some of the old fellows from the forties are still in existance.

I do not know about Kobayashi Hirokazu's group, or Tanaka Bansen - if any were there when Osensei taught. Worth asking. Iwata Ikkusai. And as for Shirata Rinjiro, I've heard that some of his students have recollections of OSensei as well.

And how about the Takumakai? I recently read a link from Aikiweb, where one of the leading lights essentially said that what they do is the same as the Yoshinkan (not surprising, as they developed, so to speak, at much the same time) - this teacher had trained at both.

Once one gets past the waza (with the human origami aspect of a lot of Daito-ryu), and gets to essentials, one will likely find far more technical similarities, at least in contemporary periods of development.

But jeez - I essayed a number of speculations in HIPS for a reason - so that people with the energy and wherewithal to do so would follow up on the turned over ground, so to speak, and seek out the last surviving people with concrete knowledge. As far as knowledge of what "they" did (as opposed to our best-practice IS training or staunchest version of pre-post war aikido), there is only a limited time to interview people who have first hand knowledge.

Umm - post-war uchi-deshi did sumo practice too. Terry Dobson told me about how they used to try out tanto-dori techniques and do sumo. One thing I remember him saying is "I could never beat Chiba in sumo." This is not, however, some <secret teaching> of internal power. Sumo was, until recently, the most basic sport of guys in Japan. Everyone did it You don't even need a ball. It's really a stretch to impute, in any fashion, that the after-hours recreation (or in-class warm-up, if that occurred) of day-to-day sumo had anything to do with, for example, the shikko practice of Sagawa, or the kind of body-grounding training that some types of internal strength regimen recommend.
Ellis Amdur

Gozo Shioda often used "old" 「老」 - most of the time that Kisshomaru wrote it he used 「大」, which is the same character used by Sokaku Takeda (but pronounced "Dai-Sensei").

"O-Sensei" is actually not all that uncommon in Japan, sometimes even just referring to the main instructor in a group of instructors - but it can be kind of jarring for US Aikido students to hear.

My personal theory is that the whole thing started when a reporter interviewing Ueshiba was called "Sensei" by Ueshiba and then replied "Well, if you call me sensei than I will have to call you O-Sensei". But that's just my hunch.

To give an example from Sugino Dojo: When Yoshio Sugino sensei was alive, everyone in the dojo referred to him as "sensei" (there was only one "sensei"). If referring to other teachers in the dojo, one would use the name + sensei (Iwata sensei, for instance). Back then, Yukihiro Sugino sensei (current head of Sugino dojo) was referred to as Waka Sensei ("young sensei") until his father's passing (also to imply that he was going to take his father's place as dojo cho). Today, he is called sensei. When talking about "sensei", everyone knows that means Yukihiro Sugino.

Today, when talking about Yoshio Sugino, it is not uncommon to use the term "O-Sensei". Not a formal title, but both a way of distringuishing between the current "sensei" and the late, and as an honour to one's late teacher.

To add to the confusion, the term "sensei" is used not only as a formal title like "teacher", but also as a way of showing respect towards a senior. So, I would call the seniors in Sugino dojo "X sensei", regardless of them having a formal teaching position or not. Likewise, my junior, who translated for us when we were in Japan, referred to his own seniors (myself included) as "X sempai". This to show his respect towards us when talking to seniors and show that he understood his place.

As Chris implies, we Westeners often have a need to formalize these things. Titles like this are used in context and will change depending on who you are talking to and about.

BTW, I find it amusing when I hear Western teachers say in videos: "Hi, I am X sensei and I am the head of this dojo". A japanese will not refer to himself as sensei, as it is a honorific title used by others. Just as a British or American wouldn't call himself "Sir".

As Chris implies, we Westeners often have a need to formalize these things. Titles like this are used in context and will change depending on who you are talking to and about.

Indeed. Hierarchy and in-group/out-group relationships are a fundamental part of the Japanese language. They are not a fundamental part of the English language, and so we non-Japanese-fluent English speakers can confuse ourselves and others if we just translate the words without understanding the relationships.

BTW, I find it amusing when I hear Western teachers say in videos: "Hi, I am X sensei and I am the head of this dojo". A japanese will not refer to himself as sensei, as it is a honorific title used by others. Just as a British or American wouldn't call himself "Sir".

(this is probably way off topic, btw)

That's true, Ueshiba used to introduce himself by saying "I am Ueshiba" (in Japanese) - no honorifics. The same when signing a letter or similar document - no honorifics.

That's true, Ueshiba used to introduce himself by saying "I am Ueshiba" (in Japanese) - no honorifics. The same when signing a letter or similar document - no honorifics.

Best,

Chris

It used to be funny at the dawing of the internet, how many would sign their post with sensei _____, not even knowing enough to write; _________ sensei, and they did it at the bottom of every post. The funny ones were seeing that at the bottom of a post about acting more Japanese!!
You still see guys -sometimes even accomplished guys- sign their post with things like; Kancho, bacho, pichu, bichu,...sensei
To me this pomp is sort of like promising me something by telling me, I swear on my mothers life!! To which I say. "Why, if your word isn't good enough, why drag your Mom into this?

Many people in budo really don't have the skills to stand on their own two feet so they really need a back-up stamp from an organization. And they know it. Others are completely able. Representing can be a tough thing, fraught with many chances to muck it all up. I feel for those people and while I sometmes laugh I respect the effort.Hi I am, Bill or Tom sure is a better opener though.
Dan

That said, I have nothing against titles, as long as they are used in a proper, sober manner. Not to invoke a false sense of importance. I have no trouble of calling my teachers sensei, shihan or whatever is called for in a particular setting, as I respect them both as human beings and as martial artists.

Just don't introduce yourself as "Sensei John" to me, or I'll bend over laughing

That said, I have nothing against titles, as long as they are used in a proper, sober manner. Not to invoke a false sense of importance. I have no trouble of calling my teachers sensei, shihan or whatever is called for in a particular setting, as I respect them both as human beings and as martial artists.

Just don't introduce yourself as "Sensei John" to me, or I'll bend over laughing

what if a guy named Bator and a Grand Master. would he introduces himself as "I am Grand Master Bator!"?

can't really comment on Ueshiba teaching ability, since none of us here took lessons from him before and after the war. some of us tried to reverse engineer his teaching based on the ability of his students. something, methink, we should consider. teaching methods before and after the war, in Japan (Asia really). and the change of the teacher view point before and after the war.

teaching method before the war, i believed, followed the older martial teaching approach where the teacher was very selective of student in term who he would teach and who he wouldn't. martial arts school, if you could even called that, tend to be small, i.e. few students. the teaching geared toward individualize, i.e. the teacher would focus certain aspect of his martial repertoire depending on the student inclination. for example, if the student favored kicking, then the teacher would focus more or less on the kicking stuffs. the relationship between teacher and student was almost father-son/father-daughter like. also, in Asia, student asking teacher questions was considered as rude, unschooled, and disrespectful. so the student had to pay a lot more attention to detail where the teaching was concerned; thus, methink, the phrased "steal technique from the teacher" had a lot more meaning here. after the war, the martial arts school environment changed, going from small and selective to large and more "commercialized". here, you have a multi-tier hierarchical setup to spread the teaching time and responsibility. teacher-student relationship was not as close/tight as before. before, rank was not important, since everyone knew the order of the line up; after, more so, since folks tend to get lost in the crowd.

then you have the teacher that went through various transformation through his/her life. philosophy changed, view point changed, physical changed as one aged. if one looked back through one's own life, one can see the changes at various important events in one's life. i believed that i mentioned somewhere before that i have not met anyone that had live through a war and not changed their view point and philosophy. and nobody had cowed with their family, hearing your children crying and your family members sobbing, in a makeshift bunker and on the receiving end of a bombing run, and not wishing for peace. Ueshiba lived through a war or two.

methink, we should consider such circumstances when we analyzed Ueshiba teaching. and i leave you with this quote from the book "Children of Dune" - "To remind you that all humans make mistakes, and that all leaders are but human."

Apart from a few people aggrandising themselves by calling themselves Shihan, Soke or whatever, generally those within Japanese M.A. know we're showing respect to other people when we use Japanese honorifics, so just to bring things back on topic

Quote:

George S. Ledyard wrote:

I think we might change the question from teaching "ability" to teaching "methodology".

Thank you very much for your post Ledyard sensei. While I think the methodology is totally pertinent, the main thing I was interested in clarifying when I started the thread was his ability as a teacher to impart his knowledge. I think the way he did it is just one important aspect of that. For example, a change in methodology might reduce that ability but then so could sticking to the same method while being "away with the fairies" (or even the kami). So method is only one variable. Madness could be another or maybe something else?

Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote:

Did Takeda changed his teaching method because said enlightenment?

I haven't seen any evidence for that. Perhaps enlightenment is a normal part of the process of becoming a "Takeda" or an "Ueshiba" and is a result of unchanging teaching methods for a range of subject material (both physical and spiritual)? Maybe Osensei took the spiritual training further (too far?) even building a shrine to the deities of aikido. Perhaps that expanded repertoire on the spiritual side took time away from teaching the physical, but I don't think that would diminish the potential ability to teach it. Not if it was a choice to mainly teach a particular aspect of the repertoire with steps taken to ensure the other important stuff was still taught. If it was an irrational compulsion rather than a choice then you could call it a drop in ability.

So people not getting the goods from him physically in the former scenario (choice of repertoire) could think that it was no longer important to Osensei to get those particular goods. In the latter scenario he was ineffective at achieving his teaching goal.

Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote:

I don't see how his beliefs in Oomoto doctrine could have affected his teaching method?

One view is that he tied the spiritual and physical training inextricably together in which case I'm inclined to agree that there was little change in method for either. As his understanding of both grew it would be a matter of the content of both changing rather than the method of transmission. From what I gather of Shamanism in the Japanese context, we are talking about Shinto and agriculture which makes me think of buno ichinyo (the union of budo and agriculture) in the aikido founder's case. Again, this seems to combine both physical and spiritual misogi (purification). I think you could describe it as "additional teaching material" (Mother Nature as the partner for training the body and mind) which is not necessarily a significant change in method that would affect teaching ability. It's more like fleshing out the content.

So we could assume that as time passed, Osensei still regarded transmission as important but gradually taught (with little change in effectiveness) a different part of the same subject more often. Clearly he observed the instructors he had created. Did he want them to just do kami-waza? Would he have approved if his instructors spent half the session talking about spirituality and kotodama before doing quick kagura mai demonstrations and claiming it came from the kami?

Could it simply be that Osensei gradually moved away from the hands-on teaching work and delegated it to the instructors he had created for that very purpose while he focused more on teaching the spiritual side for his retirement? If we are to believe Chiba Sensei, he watched them with the eyes of an eagle in the fifties and people have already described the founder flying into a rage when he saw his students not doing his aikido later on.

Quote:

O-Sensei also taught evening class occasionally or would come to watch the class. He sat in front of the kamiza with the eyes of an eagle, wordless and motionless, while Saito Sensei led the class. O-Sensei often emphasized the importance of katai-keiko, which can mean in Japanese "stiff", but it really means to be rigid, vigorous, with full force, without sparing any power, without play.

The real questions that remain
1. Who knows what he actually said
2. Who can translate what he said
3. Who actually knows what so many of the concepts he went on and one about mean in the established Asian world and where else they exist?
4. And who...are the people uninterested, and totally convinced they are already doing it...
5. Who at the end of the day, has spent decades and decades....just to feel like every other mid-level student of the art and called it a good day.

Fine by me, but not a place I ever wanted to be...so I did something different. Apparently, there are hundreds of others who feel the same way and are hotly pursuing his words and his art...instead of this son's.

No matter what you say or how hard you try to convince yourself, you cannot work and work on one thing...and magically make it something it's not.
As many women will tell you about their men!
Dan

So we could assume that as time passed, Osensei still regarded transmission as important but gradually taught (with little change in effectiveness) a different part of the same subject more often. Clearly he observed the instructors he had created. Did he want them to just do kami-waza? Would he have approved if his instructors spent half the session talking about spirituality and kotodama before doing quick kagura mai demonstrations and claiming it came from the kami?

Could it simply be that Osensei gradually moved away from the hands-on teaching work and delegated it to the instructors he had created for that very purpose while he focused more on teaching the spiritual side for his retirement? If we are to believe Chiba Sensei, he watched them with the eyes of an eagle in the fifties and people have already described the founder flying into a rage when he saw his students not doing his aikido later on.

and what Chiba says later in the link you posted

Quote:

I remember profoundly one demonstration he (Saito) performed along with other senior shihans in front of O-Sensei on the occasion of the New Year's celebration at Hombu Dojo.

He only did katadori ikkyo through yonkyo as plainly as he usually did in his class. He knew well the danger of doing something else in front of O-Sensei

Plus the different (not saying here better or worse) training methodology in Iwama hints to O Sensei had a clear image of a step by step training method, a house which had to be being built with both physical and religious materials. Bricks and concrete, from basement to the top.

IMO, what happened is his students, for various motives, built their houses with straw and sticks or, in the best cases, with bricks only. Faster, cheaper, easier, available to everyone.

So I would not say Ueshiba teaching/training ability was lacking or impaired. For me it was simply people didn't want to buy the "outdated" technology he was selling. Is not Ueshiba who changed a lot, it was his post war students who were different people from the pre war ones.

One teacher says that in his later years he was in tokyo teaching quite often. Being there training Alan Ruddock says he saw him about two hundred times. He went to many of his lessons.

He describes how during the period of his house being knocked down to build the new Hombu Dojo that he at that time taught regularly. When not teaching classes he would also appear as has been described by others.

One teacher says that in his later years he was in tokyo teaching quite often. Being there training Alan Ruddock says he saw him about two hundred times. He went to many of his lessons.

He describes how during the period of his house being knocked down to build the new Hombu Dojo that he at that time taught regularly. When not teaching classes he would also appear as has been described by others.

Regards.G.

Just a thought: If Alan Ruddock trained "every single class" including Sunday, and saw Osensei a "couple of hundred times" it would put Osensei there about 30% of the time during that three-year period right? But we already had a discussion about where Osensei was. This one is about his ability to teach in those times and locations.